The fruitlessness of Individal Acts of Political Violence

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name
Options
SubjectRQ ]e⚳#m2}E\|0☢:/Atb;⚕da<yu xkSv♓oN☫T[!V	Spoiler Image
Comment
Verification
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

The fruitlessness of Individal Acts of Political Violence Glownonymous 14-11-25 16:14:20 No.2560091

The Italian and Turkish years of lead prove how useless small scale political violence is to anyone other then the state.

I don’t know much about Italy, beyond the fact that it did literally nothing useful except get some fascists and communists killed and maybe prevented a neo~fascist coup by incidentally (without knowing it) killing the plotters.

Turkey though… I know for a fact the Grey Wolves instigated the battle for Kahramanmaraş, at the behest of the Turkish military, by assassinating communists and turning the city into a small scale war zone.

Whereupon the Turkish army came in and arrested both the communists and fascists (the people who helped the orchestrate the entire mess), declared martial law across the nation and jailed their political opponents and executed thousands.

So yeah, individual/small scale political violence are useless, if anything counter productive because it gives opportunity for the state (irregardless of the ideology of the state and perpetrators of the violence) the opportunity to crack down on any form of dissent or opposition against the regime, be it “legal” or “illegal”.

If you’re going to do something (mind you something I entirely disagree with, but that’s my opinion) you either do it properly or you don’t do it at all.

(Side note, never seen your content, YT recommended this to me randomly, I’m not a socialist/communist, though I’ve been meaning to learn about the ideologies)

Anonymous 14-11-25 16:25:28 No.2560097

>>2560091
It was never going to work if the state controlled the game, the board, and the players.
The goal was to sow chaos and fear so the state infiltrated both sides. A revolution can't succeed if the vanguard is a creature of the state that it wants to overthrow.
The Bolsheviks succeeded because they had a support base of workers, soldiers, and peasants. They took actions that were violent, but were part of a strategy to seize power.
The left guerrillas of the 70s and 80s, on the other hand, were just a small minority who wanted to shake up things and wake up the masses through spectacular acts. There is no strategy here except sowing chaos.
Also worth saying, I think there is a different context between the 70s/80s and the Russian Revolution. The Bolsheviks were heavily infiltrated by the Okhrana, but by the time of the revolution, the state was collapsed, which gave them a window of opportunity. This was not like Italy or Germany in the 1970s, where there was a strong state.

Anonymous 14-11-25 16:30:53 No.2560100

Killing peter thiel would immediately have salutatory effects.

Anonymous 14-11-25 16:34:35 No.2560107

File: 1763138075146.jpg (37.6 KB, 1024x749, 1759085863862240.jpg)

No shit uyghur, but nobody actually believes in a better world anymore, so random acts of violence is the best we get

Anonymous 14-11-25 16:36:45 No.2560109

>>2560107
What if violence is necessary to create a better world?

Anonymous 14-11-25 16:57:11 No.2560123

>>2560109
It is

General Niggnin!7MGHd/e/GM 14-11-25 17:23:21 No.2560144

The point of political violence is to bring attention, whether its some retard mass shooter or lugigi the fact it happens shows the state cannot maintain control. Don't look at it being real revolutionary action, look at it more of a sign of collaping conditions.

Unique IPs: 6